For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some crap like that.

I would note we see all that … as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good. But. that is the ‘forward progress theory’ business.

That said.

The bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for what did you learn and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know that then how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” … crap like that.

Okay.

Semi useful thinking crap like that.

But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past.

What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty.“Doomed.”

No wonder people afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learnings with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.

Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First. There are actually times to just go. Go and do. Maybe not ‘go’ as meant by leaning on instincts <I called it ‘decision faking by intuition‘ but research tends to show instincts are less important than experience> but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

You have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. And that is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer … albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

Forward progress is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time dictates the future will most likely replicate the past … well … that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Forward progress does take some bravery … some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah.

Experience.

Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

—

David Ogilvy

===============

“One can resist the invasion of an army but one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.”

—

Victor Hugo

===============

“The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.”

–

David Ogilvy

==============

So.

Today I want to take a moment and comment on business responsibility and their choices with regard to what they say, or do not say, in advertising with regard to social issues. I believe business should take stands on social issues<thru advertising or just in general>.

I do so because in today’s heightened sense of politicism and divisive rhetoric a shitload of people are making noise about “advertising should honor the event and not use it to make a political statement” or “I don’t want to know what they think, I just want to by their product” and even some business people “I don’t want to disenfranchise my business from some good existing customers.”

Well. I am most likely in the minority within the marketing community on this issue but … that is nuts to me. It is nuts for a couple of reasons – first captures the idea that business is a fabric of society whether they like it or not &, second, choices offer clarity to people & people love clarity <as well as hate … and that is good>. The first is about accepting some society responsibility and the second is, frankly, business creating wealth thru self interest. I would also note that Peter Drucker also suggested businesses should not avoid social responsibility and that it could represent opportunities.

Responsibility <& Fabric of Society>.

If not then … then when?

Uhm.

If not me … then who?

I fully understand there are consequences & repercussions for your actions. But let me take a couple minute to talk about that ‘actions’ part. Far too often this discussion devolves into a simplistic binary choice – an ‘either/or’ choice.

You stand for this therefore you hate that. In other words you cannot be pro-choice and yet respectful or understanding of pro-life … you cannot desire stronger immigration rules and still be accepting of immigrants … you cannot believe in your religion and still accept that how others worship is good & worthy.

Let’s face it.

Life, in most cases , is not some simplistic binary choice. You can, and should, believe in something and yet still can, and should, be accepting and respectful of others views. To be clear … to be successful in this endeavor we would not only need to embrace respect but also assume that most people, let’s say maybe 99% of people, do the best they can and make the best decisions they can <no matter how flawed those decisions may look in our eyes>.

Which leads me back to business and advertising. I believe advertising, in general, should always seek to highlight the opportunity for us to see the better, or best, version of who and what we are. That is responsibility. And that is where I believe business marketing and advertising should not fear speaking out. And … I would point out … what I am suggesting is not political nor is it divisive but rather it is contributing to a better society. It is not stating what you believe is wrong … but rather that standing up and speaking out for what you believe is right. Companies make statements all the time. Maybe they do more vocally internally but part of any good organization is a sense of what they believe is right, versus wrong, and how they may define integrity & values.

Frankly. We need more companies standing up and vocalizing this publicly.

This is not about saying “you are wrong for believing this” or “we do not agree with you” but rather more about normalizing what is right.

Look.

This is not about free speech or any political motivation, per se, but it is about how business, and work life, is an important part of the societal fabric of who and what we are and how and what we think.

This also means a business has to slide around the infamous ‘political correctness’ obstacle.

In my eyes … if you want to discuss how political correctness has gone awry … it would be in the business world. Political correctness scared businesses from assuming a role they had gladly played in the past. It wasn’t too long ago that business played a significant role in shaping society. As Peter Drucker pointed out, back in the early 1990’s, something he discussed called “no more salvation by society” … a time in which businesses understood that work made up a significant portion of people’s lives and therefore they had some responsibility to investing in the fabric of society. As time and views have shifted toward ‘making a dollar’ and profits … the work place became less and less an extension of society but rather simply ‘a place to work and gain a paycheck’.

What an empty thought that is.

So empty that when meetings occurred to discuss ‘risk in their advertising’, and ‘what should we say’, was discussed … ‘social responsibility’ sat in the corner and had nothing to defend it … and businesses became afraid to make a stand on what they believed was good for society <and simply focused on ‘brand differentiation’ and ‘branding’ … in other words … I am gonna just worry about me and let you worry about you>.

Well.

This is not only sad … but wrong.

It is wrong for 2 reasons:

Our work lives, like it or not, represent a significant portion of our lives … not just in terms of sheer hours but also in terms of thinking we are exposed to, accepted behavior and general attitudes on what is right & what is wrong. For a business to avoid that ‘fabric of society’ responsibility is shameful. And … yeah … advertising is the most visible expression should they actually accept the responsibility.

Brand differentiation rarely resides in some obtuse technical or product differentiation but rather in character & personality. Some intrinsic motivator which compels a consumer to find an emotional connection with you & your brand. Making a choice to become part of the fabric of society permits people to allow you o become part of the fabric of their Life.

Ok.

Yeah. That said. I go back to the beginning … yeah … there are absolutely consequences for your actions. But that is what business positioning is really all about. Distinctness and forcing people to think … think about you as a company, think about what you are offering … and thinking about how they feel about you, your message … and themselves.

That is what business positioning and marketing and advertising, at its core, is all about. We far too often dumb it down into some ‘selling shit’ sound bite but … well … that is dumb. Dumb?

2. Choices, “edges” & Clarity <Self Interest>.

I talk with a shitload of business people … not about advertising or marketing per se … but rather about simply being successful in the marketplace.

I focus on distinction and not differentiation.

I focus on worrying about “me” and what I want to say rather than finding some elusive, and most likely nonexistent, ‘white space’ in some industry to shape what I ‘should say.’

I focus on saying the right things and doing it the right way and suggesting that if you tell people the right way to think about things that eventually people will see you as ‘right’ rather than ‘wrong.’

Yes. I know. People will debate with me and, to be fair, this whole discussion wanders along the razor thin line of inclusionary versus exclusionary. If your message is effective, concise and clear, it will absolutely be inclusionary for those who see themselves in what you have to say and offer … and potentially exclusionary to others at exactly the same time. However, when done well, a business’s advertising captures the brand’s distinctness <which is a campfire to those who want to be included> and offers a better version of people <so that people do not dislike you … they imply think ‘they are not for me’>. I would argue that IS the ultimate clarity & distinctness & differentiation.

Look. To do what I am suggesting a business has to set political correctness off to the side, not think about politics at all … and simply think about … well … people. The people who they desire to try their products and services and how they would like to showcase those people as the best version of themselves. Maybe show them the destination mentally or maybe even share the path. It doesn’t matter … it is intended to connect with some better version that resides in everyone of us. And then after thinking about all that … they have to place the burden of responsibility upon their shoulders, open the door and stride out into the world to share it with people.

In business we have a responsibility.

Yes. Even in the advertising and marketing business there is an almost overwhelming responsibility <which far too many people are not willing to accept this burden> beyond simply selling stuff.

——

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or we can help lift it onto a higher level.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

“We are so busy measuring public opinion that we forget we can mold it. We are so busy listening to statistics we forget we can create them.”

Bill Bernbach

——-

It is a much easier burden to simply focus on profit and dollars — it is a straightforward black & white responsibility. Well. I would suggest to any business person reading this that … well … responsibility is responsibility. All responsibility is only as overwhelming or ‘whelming’ a you make it.

And if you do not accept your responsibility to tell the truth as excitingly and convincingly as you possibly can … lies will win and, worse, society will end up being shaped that way. If you choose to vulgarize the society or brutalize it … or even ignore it <all under the guise of ‘understanding what the consumer wants’> … society will lose.

To be clear.

I do not despair when I look at business in today’s world … or even marketing & advertising behavior <although it often pains me how often business passes on opportunities to be distinct out of what can only be ‘fear’>. But I do get aggravated. Ok. No. I get angry.

I get angry that we are not accepting the responsibility.

I get angry that we are not strong enough to accept the burden.

I get angry that many do not even presume the responsibility is within their purview.

Business, whether you like it or not, shapes society.

What we do matters.

Selling stuff may matter to our bottom line and the existence of our business, but we cannot ignore that a thriving business actually contributes to a greater good — the existence of a healthy society.

I could argue that while selling stuff is important that what really matters is the shaping of attitudes <which ultimately shapes behavior>.

Far too often, by simply focusing on ‘selling stuff’, the byproduct of our ignoring the larger responsibility is that we end up brutalizing society in some form or fashion. Am I suggesting that selling stuff or being profitable isn’t important? Of course not.

All I am suggesting is that how you sell stuff and be profitable matters.

And that you have a responsibility in how you do what you do.

Because how you do things impacts society.

It shapes society. It can vulgarize or brutalize … or invigorate and instill good.

How you do things has a power way beyond simply you or what you do in that moment.

How you do things is a pebble dropping into a pond.

Accepting the responsibility assumes you are neither impotent nor harmless.

——-

“Advertising is far from impotent or harmless; it is not a mere mirror image. Its power is real, and on the brink of a great increase. Not the power to brainwash overnight, but the power to create subtle and real change.

The power to prevail.”

Eric Clark, The Want Makers: Inside the World of Advertising, 1988

——

Your responsibility in business is sometimes subtle … but always real. I worry that business people everywhere, but in particular advertising & marketing, have become so focused on getting shit done and ‘attaining the bottom line’ that they have forgotten the responsibility.

I worry that business people worry so much about politics and ‘political correctness’ they have forgotten that when good people remain silent … the only one who wins is bad.

I ask everyone visiting today to think about what the thinking I offered today. This isn’t about causes. This isn’t about social responsibility <or the welfare of people>. This is about understanding that what you do impacts people. This is about whether you, as business people, accept the burden of responsibility to help shape a society which is a reflection of the best versions of who and what we are. That said. I would also ask everyone to ponder the fact silence also says something and, at some point, EVERYONE is going to be judged whether they said something or not <I. personally, would like to help my judgement by saying how I would like to be judged>.

Well.

In my eyes … if I am going to spend money on some advertisement and place my ad on some show where a gazillion people will see it … I am going to use my moment in the spotlight to aim for the best version of myself that I can. And aim to help people see the best version that they can be.

Will that piss some people off? Sure.

Does that make me wrong to try and meet that objective? No.

Silence is not an option. When you have the podium and he opportunity to speak … you accept the burden of responsibility and try and ‘lift society to a higher level.’

“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

==================

Ok.

I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say … I am a big balance person.

And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure.

That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response” but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means I need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.”

Now.

I am not really sure what that means but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off … something like teetering on a balance beam … proportional suggests a more spatial trade off … or maybe ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10th of a zillion.

I balanced my response but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’ but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a … well … proportional response.

All that said.

Here was the bigger epiphany to me.

While balanced may be the improper term the more I focus on it the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh?

If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right> but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry.

Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

All I really know is that whether I like it or not I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person.

It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

While I had been shaking my head over the ad when I saw it I wasn’t going to write anything until there was a really nice article in The Atlantic, “how does an ad like this get approved?” which does a fairly nice job of walking everyone through some of the backroom pretzel logic steps an advertisement like this goes through to actually end up on air.

But.

After reading the article I felt I needed to paint on a coat of some advertising development wacky reality because it neglected to share some of the more obscure things which most likely happened.

To be clear.

I could write a 10,000 word diatribe on how this Pepsi ad was a misguided use of a celebrity, a misguided hijacking of a social event, a misguided use of casting and a misguided tone overall for trying to tie image advertising for a brand with a social revolution <tied to a political issue> … but I will not. Suffice it to say that the ad itself is certainly a mashup of bad ideas … a Frankenstein … but even Frankensteins need to be built <they are not just born> and … believe it or not … there will be some specific things that will happen along the development path which can appear as ‘good business protocol’ but in reality is simply bad laboratory technique.

Now.

Before I skewer Pepsi and their in-house creative group let me suggest a shitload more of the larger companies are going to be faced with this possibility <of developing a misguided socially issue driven ad> sooner rather than later.

I have always believed a company, if it has a strong mission centered on some societal moral compass construct, should be sharing it in some form or fashion <it doesn’t have to be in-your-face> in its external marketing & advertising.

And I don’t really care whether it is a liberal or conservative lens … a business should just elegantly articulate their view in the construct of what you sell and who you are. Society is almost demanding the debate & discussion and no one is better to have it publicly, in a civil discourse versus the coarseness found within Trumpology, than businesses.

Saying that … I give Pepsi points for at least making the attempt. I take points away because … well … a brand & company as large as Pepsi with access to so much creative & strategic talent should have made a better attempt.

But you know what?

Even in their bad they did some good … we talked about standing up for shit and how you should, or should not, stand up for shit.

Rather than beat the shit out of Pepsi for this attempt I will hold my fire until we see the next attempt and see if they learned something.

I would suggest everyone try and do that.

Now.

As for how and why ads like this get approved.

The article suggested this:

“How do these ads get approved?

By brand managers who are not doing their cultural homework—relying upon surface-level understandings of the cultural phenomenon they are featuring in their marketing communications and not understanding the deep well of emotions, identity politics, and ideologies that their ads will trigger.”

Jill Avery, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School

Oh.

If it were only this black & white, I could solve this.

It is much more absurdly complicated in order to actually approve and produce something this so brutally off target.

Suffice it to say that the issue will encompass a spectrum of things … there will be a spectrum of misguided ‘execution strategy’ combined with some absurd “brand imperatives” all wrapped up in a nice snug outfit made up of stubborn edgy creative people, old white executives out of touch with their target audience, brand managers adverse to risk but an unhealthy desire to be cooler than they are and company visionaries who view cultural trends through what is cool rather than what is truly trendworthy.

This is a Frankenstein social issue “brand” ad created by a brand built on … well … no real social issues … but rather it is representative of a vapid brand which has convinced itself <at least some time in the past> it was more like a ‘fashion brand.’

Of course I should take a minute and discuss the research which “must have been done” to create this ad.

First.

If there really was any research done we need to remind ourselves this is a ‘fashion brand’ <or someone has convinced them they should think of themselves as fashion brand … which is stupid> created on some vapid imagey type attributes therefore their research is mostly based on some vapid feel-good “cool” cultural benchmarks.

Sure.

I could have set them up with some research company who could have measured what needed to be measured but <a> they don’t want that kind of truth and <b> someone smarter than I was yelling “how could we measure new information … we need to see results which can be compared to what we have so we can also see some ‘post’ numbers.”

Well. That yeller was yelling some well-intended truth but misguided in this case.

In larger companies it is always <always> gobs of “pre” information which you pour over and then setting up a ‘post analysis’ against the pre-stuff. This assumes the “pre” is meaningful and on target and that the ‘post’ is really what matters.

Uh oh.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

Status quo is a sonuvabitch.

That is mostly research they would have used to inform the development.

To be clear.

I don’t think they did any ‘pre’ research. I think they “saw” a cultural movement within their supposed target audience and decided “I want to connect with them <so someone go do an ad to do that>.”

If any of this past ‘pre’ research was used it was simply to highlight the aspects that supported the idea they wanted to do <I feel comfortable saying that because I have done just that … cherry picking the “pre” information to highlight the reason why an idea is something worth pursuing and even highlighting some of the first components you may want to start building your Frankenstein with … uhm … any advertising person with half a brain has done this>.

Second.

Ok.

Let’s assume they did some research on the ad itself <which is different than research informing the development of the ad>.

Someone probably set up some high falutin’ research methodology tracking watcher response second by second and checked scores against industry norms <or their own imagey crappy stuff they have done in the past> and the final power point was 30 pages long <with maybe 12 pages of backup graphs> and the printed binder they handed out to a select few to bludgeon themselves with at a later date was probably 80 pages <with nice colored tabs>.

Here is the net of all that stuff.

The celebrity drove up ‘breakthrough’, recall and ‘brand interest’ <albeit they hid the numbers that said the celebrity did not build credibility or authenticity>.

And, yeah, I would also bet someone probably dug up a nice score on “unique from competition.”

And I also bet they figured out a way to get a score worth showing <you never show bad numbers unless you can convince everyone that the bad number is actually a good number … yeah … we do that> to suggest the overall message was topical and that their audience related to the importance of “standing up and speaking out.”

And I would also bet that they didn’t have a particularly good, nor bad, likeability score … just something that didn’t deter them from this path.

And, lastly, I would bet they rummaged through any research they had to seal the deal on what I believe is possibly the worst part of the ad <having the celebrity leave being a celebrity and join the ‘common folk’>. They found a number that suggested “this shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

I added this last thought and call it out because … well … this is about the only thing that could have been said in the final presentation to the old white men, out of touch with their everyday customer, to gain final approval.

And let me say about the test scores I just highlighted … this is where testing fails people. It’s just numbers. And it’s just not real world.

The numbers don’t match the eye/sniff test.

And in a real world <on tv> environment the ad is annoying to anyone who actually wanted to participate in the movement or did participate … and the ad is generally unmemorable <and doesn’t even come close to capturing any aspect of ‘soul’ of Pepsi … assuming they have one>.

In testing it may seem fun and hip and upbeat but on tv it is annoying and bland and soulless.

By the way … I tossed in the word “soul” in that discussion.

I bring it up to make a point to any and all vapid brands out there thinking about actually taking on a social issue & message.

“Cool” doesn’t hack it if you want to be a fabric of society <which is different than a fabric of culture>. Weaving your way into the fabric of society demands you share a little bit of your soul … your heart … so that people can connect.

Vapid fashion brands far too often forget they are selling shit to people. Most times they will just say “that’s the job of promotions” or “that is point of sale efforts and we are supposed to drive people to the point of sale” or “our job is to be cool so that people want us so badly they will drive through … well … neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Uhm. On rare occasions, maybe a new i-phone, you can inspire that kind of ‘urgent desire to buy’ but in most cases it is just a 6-pack of Pepsi.

Creative people are stubborn people in their everyday work life. The non-hacks … the good talented smart creative people, mostly in good ways, stubbornly & aggressively hold on to creative edges <not just to be edgy but rather to insure there is some edge to what is done>. This gets dialed up in image advertising campaigns because for some reason as soon as a creative person hears “image” <or “brand”> they immediately think “vapid” <I don’t have to sell anything, communicate anything specific and the objective is to create an overall sense that what I am saying is good and the brand is some good shit>.

Triple the intensity with regard to everything I just said for creative hacks <or almost all non-agency advertising people> and add in they confuse ‘creative edges’ with ‘edgy’.

If you are attempting to do an image advertisement you are only partially challenged <fucked> with good creative people and absolutely screwed <fucked> with bad creative people.

Lastly.

How does something like this get approved?

The “someone.”

Ok.

With an ad like this, which I assume was polarizing in its final stages, there is always “someone.”

Someone who stands up and says ‘here is why.” Someone to stand up and speak out that bullshit line I just shared with you … “this ad shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

There is always ‘someone’ in that frickin’ final approval room, usually someone who shouldn’t have that kind of power, who the old white advertising-clueless men will look to in their moment of doubt on whether it is the right thing to do.

In the advertising business you cultivate this ‘someone’ so that they can bring you home <even if you have a bad misguided idea>. Suffice it to say on an ad like this there will be someone at Pepsi right now who is squirming and most likely getting ready to point a finger at some research person for either <a> not giving the right piece of information or <b> not asking the right kind of question.

Anyway.

I feel sorry for companies who truly do want to start doing image advertising and stay within their brand character and navigate the internal politics and … well … it is nothing they have done before.

There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now on this topic <and if someone tells you there is … they are lying>.

If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

That isn’t to say someone like me, or someone with smarts, experience and more talented than I, couldn’t guide a company down a viable path to success … just that there is no formula.

What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula.

And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business advertising idea … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches <see Pepsi as an example>.

Your business formula for success will have to be yours.

In the end I would say this.

My guess is that Pepsi tried using a formula for something that is most likely really different than things they have tried in the past.

And while the difference between brutal and brilliant is a relatively thin line even for the people who do this for a living … you can teeter even more when attempting to enter into the fabric of a societal issue.

This ad was horrible.

Absolutely horrible.

But please don’t forget … Pepsi tried. They made the attempt.

In a Trumpenstein world in which being silent will only let the monster tear the village apart they spoke out. They stood up.

Misguided? Sure.

The villagers tore them apart.

But maybe, just maybe, the villagers should pick them up, dust them off, and say go try again … because the Trumpenstein is coming … and we can use any voice we can.

======================

“You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

Brands are meant to be subtle things … less crude and more elegance in their architecture. That doesn’t mean they cannot have some coarser aspects to its facing and how it interacts with the public but behind the facing , of at least a successful brand, is often an intricate web of elegantly crafted pulleys & levers.

Sigh.

This leads me to the brand which Donald J Trump bludgeons us with.

Maybe because the rabid Trump trolls haven’t found me en masse yet I really haven’t had to defend my Trump critiques that extensively.

However.

I do get a small amount of thoughtful pushbacks. Most of the pushbacks are grounded in the random thoughts President Trump offers that have some validity <immigration needs to be resolved, too many regulations, etc.>.

Look, no, I am not suggesting there are not scraps of good ideas and good things. Of course there are. But we should be demanding more than scraps. But within the ‘Trump Affect’ it seems like scraps attain value of the whole.

Regardless.

The main way I address the Trump Affect is to approach it just as he does – branding.

To begin I will admit I am slightly biased. I have seen the best of the best in marketing, advertising and positioning of companies & products. I have seen the good & the bad. This means I know you can have it all when it comes to a brand … and we should demand it all.

But Trump is kind of like the old Mr. Whipple toilet paper television ads.

Horrible advertising <embracing to anyone associated with it> but allowed the product managers to stand up year after year pointing at sales increases. It was a good idea poorly implemented. Most advertising/marketing people with half a brain knew it would have been more effective if it had been done in a way that not only drove sales built created positive brand <instead all the advertising did was create sales but horrible “brand likeability” scores>.

I say that to state we deserve good ideas that fit within who and what America is — effective tactics and building our brand at the same time.

We should not choose between one or the other.

Trump forces us to choose the only item on his menu – a bombastic, coarse, juvenile brand.

Trump may actually have some good ideas somewhere within all his unflinching bluster but because he is bludgeoning us with what he believes is his most effective brand messaging/personality he is shattering his audience into defensive fragments who are seeking more than what he is offering.

On the other side … this also means we are being forced into a variety of different fragments trying to defend and defeat the Trump brand bludgeoning style.

All this defeating & defending is a huge pain in the ass, and difficult, because his style is solely brand with no underpinnings <how do you defeat hollowness?>.

In fact … he is doing what most of us marketers would suggest is folly — he stands for nothing therefore he stands for everything. He is like the Swiss Army knife of offerings <without the Swiss Army quality>. Because he has positioned his brand solely on personality <bullying toughness … kind of a Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes. Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer mix if you accept a sports metaphor> he has cobbled together a fragmented group of followers <or maybe better said … selective issue followers> to confuse the rest of us into thinking this is a ‘multi-purpose effective brand.’

I will point out that this is the most simplistic bastardized version of what a brand is. This is a ‘fad brand’ strategy — not built for any functional pragmatic long term but rather solely emotional ‘if you like how you feel’ come along for the ride short term.

However.

My biggest issue resides within the soul of whatever brand he is selling. I bring that issue up because I believe we are currently being forced into a struggle for the soul of America by someone <a brand> who I am not sure has a soul.

Which leads me back to brands.

Brands make difficult choices when entering into the market place.

We can do difficult things, and we should when necessary, but we should always do it the right way.

Sadly … we have already lost no matter what.

For years we have held our heads high, maybe slightly too arrogantly, as the moral voice for the world with all our freedoms & attitudes.

For example … this crazy batshit stupid ineffective travel ban just made us hypocrites as well as less safe.

Before this stupid ban people around the world were just laughing at us … now they see us as no better than they … and some now hate us more for all the posturing we had done to date.

This is not to say America is still not posturing … it is just our posturing has almost become a caricature of reality <and the brand itself has become a caricature>:

One of the most noticeable differences is in style: While Obama signed most of his executive orders in private, Trump has signed all of his in public, with a headline-generating photo opportunities intended to convey constant presidential action.

“Executive orders are generally used to enact public policies, but some of Trump’s orders seem to have been for more symbolic or rhetorical purposes,” says Graham Dodds, a political scientist at Concordia University in Montreal.

And that seems to be part of the strategy. “We’ve hit the ground running at a record pace,” he boasted in his weekly radio address Saturday.The White House is scheduling executive order signing ceremonies even before it knows which order Trump is going to sign — or whether he’ll sign them at all.

Brands are always about frame of reference. They struggle to exist in a world of ‘nothing’ and thrive in a world of comparisons.

I offer that thought because if you treat specific actions in isolation it can become easy to not only normalize but, in a an extremely flawed logic way, you create a one-on-one false comparison.

Trump branding consists of the best use of false comparison I have ever seen <because it resides in a world of ‘nothing’>.

I will not argue that Trump is a game-changer <for better or worse>. But I worry <a lot> that he is changing America into a dumber America … certainly a less intellectually or open-to-learning society..

Just use some words to ponder what I just said I worried about:

Justin Trudeau Canada Prime Minister, age 45

“We need to remain focused on keeping our communities safe and united instead of trying to build walls and scapegoat communities. To paint terrorists with a broad brush that extends to all Muslims is not just ignorant – it is irresponsible. If we allow individuals and organizations to succeed by scaring people, we do not actually end up any safer. Fear does not make us safer. It makes us weaker. Ramping up fear and closing our borders is not a solution.”

Angela Merkel, Germany Chancellor, age 62

“The chancellor regrets the US government’s entry ban against refugees and the citizens of certain countries. She is convinced that the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain origin or a certain religion.”

Donald Trump, US President, age 70.

“bad dudes.”

Or.

“Happening all over the world absolutely a terrible thing.” <about St. Petersburg bomb … his press secretary offered US assistance to Russia and said “our thoughts and prayers are with the injured and with the Russian people”.

Those words reflect how my brand is competing against other brands. That’s the business way of viewing how things are articulated <instead of just shaking one’s head or applauding ‘simplistic candor’>.

Lastly.

Surprisingly for a supposed branding guy he is features focused and not benefit focused in his self-marketing. He dangles shiny object features in front of us … and is expecting us to not see the greater whole the features … well … the features actually don’t really coalesce into anything meaningful with a solid useful benefit.

While brands are typically intricate webs of creation they also represent complex challenges to defeat. He is bludgeoning America blow by blow and the rest of us are simply trying to counter punch … and he has moved on. Simplistically, he is fundamentally reshaping America with simplistic sledgehammer blows and the rest of us are talking about the last punch. I

I do know, personally, in social media i would be using small listicles <albeit I hate them but they are effective>. stacking up three initiatives and showcase how they are fundamentally shifting America <because i would imagine a lot of people will not like the combinations>.

I would use the standard business trick of triangulating or boxing in his actions <using the corners/points to surround America in the middle> so that people can see how america is being effected overall.

For example, if the three points in the triangle are international, domestic & social you get to show America how all that he is doing relates.

Anyway.

To defeat the Trump brand we HAVE to start doing that because taken one by one some of the Trump brand crap actually looks harmless or ‘not that bad’ and, yet, taken as a whole he is turning the Titanic toward the iceberg and not away from it.

To be clear.

This is not the way successful brands are created. Successful brands, the best of the best, offer us everything. We need not compromise on anything important and yet it offers a distinct choice. It is not easy to do what I just said but it absolutely represents a brand which need not bludgeon anyone to build sustainable value.

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

―

Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets

======

“Little by little, a little becomes a lot.”

—

Tanzanian proverb

============

Ok.

Business is always about choices.

Mostly hard and difficult choices.

Of course … a business leader can make some easy choices and avoid the more difficult ones. Simplistically, the novice business leaders see a prize and set about attempting to attain that prize.

Let’s call that ‘tunnel vision objectives’.

Frankly, if that represented the best of the best in terms of leadership … running a business would be fairly easy and almost anyone could run & manage a business.

But. That’s not reality. That’s not really the way it works. Rarely are things as simple as they appear and even more rarely is something a simple cause & affect, do this and get that, without any unintended consequences. I thought about this as I watch the Trump administration take some fairly extreme steps to <as Ted Cruz seems to have patented> “take the boot off the necks of businesses.”

The Trump administration is bringing a sledgehammer to business regulations.

I have actually have little doubt that the measures the moral-less Trumplestiltskins will actually make the American economy grow more easily and possibly even create some higher growth than we have been enjoying.

But, that is easy.

That is something a beginner would do because it is obvious and, if your only goal was to show “wins & results” that is what you would do.

The more difficult thing is to create a menu of objectives, balance them all out as important, and set about a plan of action to attain them in which you remained positive on almost all fronts and accept the fact you will sacrifice some ‘higher highs’ on some items on the menu for positives on all fronts.

This business management choice is more difficult because anyone with half a brain could pull out one thing on the menu and point out how it could be done better and be doing better.

Shit.

I did that crap when I was in my 20’s. It is a cheap way of scoring points and showing you can drive some specific results. And it is on this greater point where I believe the Obama administration doesn’t get enough business credit.

I will not argue they didn’t overreach on some regulations and some initiatives … because I believe they did. And, yet, even with the overreach, which obviously constricted business & economic growth, they still left the reins loose enough for the business & economy to grow at a quasi-healthy rate.

Could someone suggest it was an “anemic healthy” rate? Sure. That is if you viewed it by ignoring any restrictions and any other objectives and any other priorities they outlined. And if you did that I would argue you were either lazy or self-serving.

The Obama administration demanded business growth and yet demanded a longer term action plan to accommodate the environment, climate, immoral business practices and, in general, a variety of activities which girded the economy and the country for the long term.

The economy did grow. Unemployment did decrease. Wages did slowly increase.

And at exactly the same time regulations were put in place to steer desired long term behavior.

Basically … from a business perspective … the Obama administration managed to figure out how to meet short and long term objectives at exactly the same time.

Were they perfect? Of course not.

Could they have managed the balance differently? Sure.

Did they balance it well enough? Yeah. the results prove it out.

In business we always need to strike a balance between doing what is best for our business and doing what customers want and doing what our customers need … and all within short term needs and long term demands. And, yes, customers are more empowered today than ever before but as a business leader you view what the customer wants through a lens of “what is best for the business itself.”

The Obama administration appeared to balance what the customer wanted, and needed, with what the country <the business> needed & wanted.

Not to get into business management weeds but this shows an ability to assess the greater opportunity cost for all things considered in attaining all objectives. What this does, when you do it well, is to insure you view the ‘easy’ choice you are sure to assess how fast the ‘costs’ accrue against all objectives <not just on the choice itself>. A good business person always assesses the overall impact on your business with every choice.

Ultimately, it is a balancing act to insure everything you do should produce value for your business and for customers. This is not easy and it doesn’t beget a shitload of easy decisions. But it does make for balanced strategies and balanced tactical executions.

I do not see any of this with the Trump administration.

A good business person wouldn’t bring a sledgehammer to existing rules, regulations and initiatives but rather a scalpel – and surgically assess and slice out specific items which would increase the overall flow of the lifeblood of the economy <without killing the body>. But, apparently there are no good business people in this new administration <despite what Trump says about himself>.

Look.

You can argue with the objectives the Obama administration prioritized and you can argue over any specific priority <or deprioritization> but given the objectives & priorities they selected … they attained what almost any business leader would kill for – a win on almost everything.

In a world in which we almost demand singular focus the administration said “no” <philosophically I agree with that mentality> and developed multiple objectives and managed them all relatively equally.

All I really know is that the Obama administration most likely did not get enough credit business & economy-wise.